Filters Used: 1 Tagged Record Date Printed: 4I2712015 Time Printed: Printed By: LISA Email Report Form Format Date 4/24/2015 Tlme Duration 0.00 (hours) Code Subject Robert Wein Staff Ellen Morris Client Ms. Elizabeth B. Savitt MatRef Wein, Robert Paul MatNo 30818.008 From Stacy Wein To Ellen Morris CC To Elizabeth Savitt dwein5680@aol.com To Reminders (days before) Follow Done Notify Hide Trigger Private Status User 1 User3 User? User4 Dear Ellen: Thank you for taking the time to meet my father and I on Wednesday. It was almost 6 PM before we left the Assisted Living Facility because we wanted to make sure that Bob ate, as he is so upset about the situation with my Cousin Larry. We are happy that you intend to pursue the annulment. After that, my father and I spent considerable time going over all of the documents carefully and reviewing the statutes as well. We found a number of issues with the "Amended and Restated Robert Wein Living Trust" of August 2014 which had escaped my previous reading and may have escaped yours also. I have run this by another Elder Law Attorney and I would not take your time, again, unless I felt that Elizabeth had the responsibility and the legal rights as Guardian to pursue these issues in court. 1. At the present time Robert Wein is stated as the Trustee. There are no co? trustees. Article IV, paragraph D, sub paragraph 1a. (page 14) appointed DELORES BRYANT as successor trustee and if she resigns, etc, then JORDAN KLINGSBERG. ESQ, together with partners of the law firm of GUTTER CHAVES, et al.. According to the REPORT OF COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL (Mitch Kitrosa), Delores Bryant as well as Jordan Klingsberg or any other Gutter Chaves attorney are "not" willing to serve as trustees. 80 currently there are no appointed successor trustees. Another worrisome point is that the Amended and Restated trust gives Gutter Chaves "the power" to appoint a successor trustee. (See the last sentence of the aforementioned paragraph). The Gutter ?rms has no prior relationship with my Uncle. It wasn't until a few days after his marriage to Vita that Jodi Rich took him to "her attorneys" to revoke the Robert Wein Living Trust of November 2013 entered into in the state of New York, where Bob lived for almost 87 years. 2. In the court order appointing Elizabeth as guardian, paragraph 2, it specifically states the rights delegated to the guardian islare to to manage all of the property of the ward including the assets of the Robert Wein Trust" Not the Amended and Restated Trust). It goes on to say "The investment of the wards funds shall be overseen by Morgan Stanley through the office of Matthew Hughes". The reference to the "Robert Wein Trust? is obviously the "Robert Wein Living Trust" dated November 25, 2013, since during this period the assets were in this trust and not in the Amended and Restated Trust. In fact a large portion of the assets were held in the Morgan Stanley Account #232- 087194-212, titled R. WEIN D.WEIN R.WEIN LIV. TR. 11I2512013. Up to today?s date, the substantial assets in two other accounts, namely, Joseph Gunner and TIG Arbitrage Associates LP, are still titled The Robert Wein Living Trust of Nov 25, 2013). No assets were ever transferred to the Filters Used: Date Printed: 4127/2015 1 Tagged Record all Re Do rt Time Printed: Form Format Printed By: LISA Amended and Restated Trust of August 25, 2014. 3. There is also another very concerning issue for future probate. My father checked the current equity account held by Morgan Stanley. It is titled ?Elizabeth Savitt Guardian for Estate of Robert Wein?. Evidently it is not a Trust account and I believe it would be subject to probate upon Bob's demise. Additionally we understand that Elizabeth is consolidating all the other equity accounts into the Morgan Stanley account with Matthew Hughes. Unless the Account is in a trust, it compounds the probate issues. In my reading of 744.441 (19) the Guardian does have the ability to make these decisions. There are signi?cant issues, besides the ones my father enumerated, with the Amended and Restated Trust that you propose to use as the instrument for further amendments. l'm at a loss of why you would choose the "Amended and Restated Trust of 2014" to follow instead of the original "Robert Wein Living Trust of November 2013" that presents none of these issues. Again thanks with your consideration. Respectfully, Stacy Wein Sent from my iPad Filters Used: I Date Printed: 6/09/2015 1 Tagged Record mall Re Do rt Time Printed: Printed By: LISA Form Format To: 'Ellen Morris'; 'Mitchell Kitroser' Subject: RE: Wein guardianship Thank you for the clari?cation and the recommendation. If my clients approve, I will circulate a revised proposed Agreed Order in the morning. Manuel Kushner Kaye Scholer LLP Phillips Point, West Tower Suite 900 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 T: (561) 868-7517 I F: (561) 802-3217 ManueI.Kushner@kayescholer.com From: Ellen Morris Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 7:58 PM To: 'Mitchell Kitroser?; Faryn M. Kushner; Kushner, Manuel Subject: RE: Wein guardianship I just con?rmed with my client that she never told Daniel either of the things reported in your email below. She told me she told Daniel that the validity of the marriage and the validity of the trust amendment are up to the attorneys. She maintains that Robert continues to say he wants to live with and take care of Vita. She also recognizes that he and Vita have been together for the past 2 months so he may be influenced by that but she says that Vita is someone to be there with Robert and he wants that. She is in favor of limiting Vita's expenses to payment of necessities including only food, shelter and necessary medical expenses only as long as she is residing with Daniel in the facility or home chosen by the guardian, I suggest limiting the medical expenses by speci?cally excluding long term care needs of Vita in excess of the level of care we are providing for Robert,currently. Therefore if she needs a nursing home, we won't pay or if Robert needs a nursing home and has to be moved to one we only pay for her if she goes with him and can reside in the same room as him. Betsy states that having Vita with Robert in the currently facility is not much more expensive than Robert being there alone. Ellen S. Morris, Esq. ELDER LAW ASSOCIATES PA 7284 W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 101 Boca Raton, FL 33433 561-750-3850 800-ELDERLAW (353-3752) toll free 561 -750-4069 fax EMorris@ElderLawAssociates.com IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to ensure compliance with IRS Circular 230, we must inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this transmission and any attachments hereto is not intended or written to be used and may not be used by any person for the purpose of avoiding any penalty that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein. The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and 2 Filters Used: I Date Printed: 6/09/2015 ?agged Record Email Report Time Printed: Form Format Printed By: LISA con?dential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message and its attachments, if any, may be an attorney-client communication and, as such, is privileged and con?dential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Original To: Mitchell Kitroser Cc: Ellen Morris From: Kushner, Manuel Sent: 10114I2014 Subject: RE: Wein guardianship Thanks Mitch. I did hear back from Ellen Morris, who said the guardian does not intend to contest the marriage or the trust amendment during Robert's lifetime. I told my client, who then spoke with the guardian, and reported back that the guardian does intend to contest the marriage and the trust amendment during Robert's lifetime. It would be helpful if Ellen could check and con?rm her client's position on this. Ellen suggested that I present a revised proposed Agreed Order. I'm considering something that says until such time as there has been a determination that the August 6, 2014 marriage of Robert Wein and Vita Wein is invalid, and provided Robert and Vita Wein are living together in the same apartment or house, the guardian will pay for the routine care and maintenance expenses of Vita Wein, taking into account any assets that Vita has already received from Robert, and further provided that the expenses of Vita Wein do not exceed per month. The order will also have to recite that it is without prejudice to any interested person's right to challenge either the August 25, 2014 trust amendment or the validity of the August 6, 2014 marriage of Robert Wein and Vita Wein, following Robert Wein's death. Also, there will need to be a separate determination of incapacity. I will speak with my client in the morning, and get back to you both. Regards, Manny Manuel Kushner Kaye Scholer LLP Phillips Point, West Tower Suite 900 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 T: (561) 868-7517 F: (561) 802-3217 Manuel.Kushner@kayescholer.com 3 Filters Used: I Date Printed: 1 Tagged Record all Re [30 rt Time Printed: Printed By: LISA Form Format From: Mitchell Kitroser Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 5:23 PM To: Ellen Morris; Kushner, Manuel; John Pankauski; Sean Lebowitz; Jordan Klingsberg Subject: Wein guardianship Good afternoon all: Despite everyone's efforts, we do not have a comprehensive agreement in place. I will be in the of?ce tomorrow morning and will continue to be available to all counsel if you think we can put something together prior to hearing tomorrow. Absent that. my position on behalf of my client has been set forth in my report which you have just received. Mitchell I. Kitroser, Esq. Mitchell I. Kitroser, P.A. Lawyers for the Special Needs of Families 8895 North Military Trail, C-201 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Ph: 561-721-0600 Fx: 561 -61 6-0079 IF YOU HAVE AN URGENT MATTER, DO NOT RELY ON EMAIL. PLEASE TELEPHONE THE OFFICE. IF YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO AN EMAIL, WE MAY NOT HAVE RECEIVED YOUR MESSAGE. PLEASE CALL US. Con?dential and Privileged Communication. The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and con?dential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication andIor work product and as such is privileged and con?dential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. 4 Filters Used: Date Printed: 1 Tagged Record all Re rt Time Printed: Printed By: LISA Form Format IRS Circular 230 Notice Requirement. This communication is not given in the form of a covered opinion, within the meaning of Circular 230 issued by the United States Treasury. Thus, we are required to inform you that you cannot rely upon any tax advice contained in this communication for the purpose of avoiding United States federal tax penalties. In addition, any tax advice contained in this communication may not be used to promote, market, or recommend a transaction to another party. E-mail viruses. This e-mail transmission and any attachments are believed to have been sent free of any viruses or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened. It is, however, the recipient's responsibility to ensure that the e-mail transmission and any attachments are virus free, and Mitchell I. Kitroser, P.A. accepts no responsibility for any damage that may in anyway arise from their use. Elizabeth "Betsy" Savitt Savitt Guardians 561 -573-1 292 Fax 561-439-6765 Page 1 of 2 Subj: FW: Robert Wein Date: 10:13:2014 9:53:39 AM. Eastern Daylight Time From: Mannel.Kushner?kavescholercom To: CC: stac ein aol.com f.y.i. Manuel Kushner Kaye Scholer LLP Phillips Point, West Tower Suite 900 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 T: (561) 868-7517 F: (561) 802-3217 From: Mitchell Kitroser Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 9:17 AM To: John Pankauski Cc: Kushner, Manuel; Ellen Morris Subject: Robert Wein Good morning John: I met with my client and with Elizabeth Savitt, the ETG, over the weekend. I also spoke with Mr. Kushner. I believe that the essence of an agreement has been reached, but for-your notice-of - adversary proceeding. When you and I spoke last week, you stated that you believed there were documents in existence that would provide less restrictive alternatives to guardianship, other than those generated by Gutter Chaves or those that gave Daniel Wein co-tmstee powers. Please produce those now. I feel you should know that my client was not even aware of the factthathis wife had retained you and-hehas instructed me to object toypur receiptof-apy legal fees from his funds. Please also know that but for your pleading, an agreement that will protect and take care of my client for the remainder of his lifetime is in place. Absent, any other better alternatives, .1 am comfortable moving-forward with this agregpient?fand will, if pushed to do so, let the court know that your filing has hindered, rather than bene?tedy?niyiicli'ent. I will be preparing my report today and intend to circulate it before close of business today or by tomorrow morning at the latest. If there is anything that you possess which would, in your opinion, actually bene?t my client that I should see prior to ?nalizing my report, I would appreciate it if you would get it to me now. Mitchell I . Kin-user, Esq. Mitchell I. Kitroser, PA. Lawyers for the Special Needs of Families 8895 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Ph: 561-721-0600 Fx: 561-616?0079 IF YOU HAVE AN URGENT NOT RELY ON EMAIL. PLEASE TELEPHONE THE OFFICE. IF YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO AN EMAIL, WE MAY NOT HAVE RECEIVED YOUR MESSAGE. PLEASE CALL US. Con?dential and Privileged Communication. 111:: iul'onnation contained in this c-mail message is intended only for the personal and con?dential use of Monday, October 13, 2014 AOL: Dwein5680 FEBRUARY 10, 2015 prepared by Daniel Wein) CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE MARRIAGE OF ROBERT WEIN TO VITA WEIN AND CONCERNING ROBERT TRUST AGREEMENTS A) THE ARGUMENT AND RATIONALE TO PURSUE THE AN NULMENT OF MARRIAGE TO VITA There are 2 separate reasons, each one suf?cient by itself, to annul the marriage. The ?rst is a moral and ethical consideration. It is indisputable, there being ample documentation and Opinion, that when the marriage took place on August 6, 2014, Bob was suffering from dementia and was easily manipulated into the marriage. By Bob's own statement he was told that the marriage would protect his son Larry. He was coerced by Vita and Jodi into a marriage he would never have partaken in if he were not in a demented state. Bob's statement Feb 9, 2015 to Ellen Morris, Esq that he wanted to stay married to Vita was in variance to statements made by Bob to me on numerous occasions, that he did not want to stay married. It is evident that he is not consistent about this, which might be expected because of his current mental state. For example the questions I had asked him were Do you talk and have conversations with Vita?, ?Are you happy being married to Vita?, ?Is being married to Vita in any way protecting Larry?, ?Do you want to remain married to Vita?. The answers were always negative. Bob will answer differently to the question of whether he wants to stay married depending on the time of day, who is asking the question, the state of his passivity, etc. There are times he does not want to make ?waves?, other times when he is more retrospective and more aware. My point is that Bob's desire to stay married or not to stay married should not be the deciding factor nor a signi?cant factor in proceeding with an annulment. As guardian I think you have a moral obligation to reverse this life changing legal action which exploited Bob's mental condition of dementia. The second suf?cient reason to pursue the annulment is one of ?duciary responsibility as guardian. Currently Bob is expending approximately $3,100 per month for Vita's room and board at the Assisted Living Facility, plus misc living expenses. If the marriage is annulled Vita could go on Medicaid, this insurance picking up the expenses of Vita's upkeep. Should there be any misc living expenses Bob of course could cover them. The savings to Bob's expenses would be substantial. Now if Bob remains married to Vita there is another ?nancial burden on his estate when he passes. Vita will by Florida Law (Fla Stats 732.2065) receive 30% of the elective estate. Using current ?gures, 30% of Bob's liquid assets would be approximately $700,000. If you factor in the outstanding loans( documented by Promissory Notes) of over $700,000 that might be recovered, Vita could receive an additional $200,000 plus. So she would receive between $700,000 and $900,000 in round numbers. Bob would never have agreed to have these substantial funds diverted from his bequeath to Larry upon his death. I have never discussed this matter with Bob. He would certainly be distressed and disturbed by this revelation. I have no doubt that one of the motives for Vita and Jodi to coerce Bob into the marriage was speci?cally ?nancial. So here again is a reason to pursue the annulment as a ?duciary. - Page 1- B) THE RATIONALE FOR REVOKING THE AMENDED AND RESTATED TRUST, DATED 25 AUGUST 2014, AND USING ANOTHER TRUST TO EFFECUATE CHANGES. The meeting between Bob, Elizabeth and Ellen Morris on Feb 9, resulted as I understand in a decision to correct and revoke the offensive stipulation of the paragraph immediately preceding Article 1 of the aforementioned Amended and Restated Trust, which begins with My brother, DANIEL WEIN shall be treated hereunder as having predeceased me and shall neither receive gifts or amounts nor acquire any such bene?cial interests under this Trust. - - - Bob, of course, has indicated many times that this was not his intention at any time, nor was he aware of removing me as an heir when he signed this Trust. The statement was offensive to both Bob and myself and we are both happy that this matter will be corrected. It is also my understanding that the provisions regarding bequeaths and bene?ciaries in a former Will, dated 1 March 2011, will be used in any revision, or amendments. It would be a mistake to use the aforementioned Amended and Restated Trust as the instrument to correct the provisions. This Trust, dated 25 August 2014 was formed and signed when Bob was suffering from dementia. It opens up the distinct possibility of being contested upon Bob's death. For example, Larry may well object to the provisions for Vita, especially if the marriage is not annulled. If provisions of the trust are changed or if the marriage is annulled you can surely expect litigation from Jodi, as POA for Vita, to recover a larger portion of Bob's estate. Theoretically I could also contest the Trust. It seems evident to me that there is a better way to execute changes that will stand on firmer legal grounds. One way is to form a new Guardian Trust. This may however also present a problem because it will have been made while Bob is suffering from dementia and present cause for contesting it. The safest way I believe is to use the original Robert Wein Living Trust, dated November 25, 2013 as the instrument for making any changes/amendments and they should be few since it follows fairly closely with the provisions of the Will, dated 1 March 2011. In fact this will was used as a guide by the attorneys who drew up the Trust. Contesting this trust on the basis that Bob was suffering from dementia has much less standing then the other instruments. It was signed a full year before he was judged incapacitated due to dementia. Furthermore in the September - October 2013 time frame when I was ?rst looking in to the wisdom of establishing myself as Power of Attorney because of Bob's physical illness, I contacted his Primary Care Physician, Dr Grossman, and asked him to determine if Bob was competent to sign legal documents. Dr Grossman examined Bob and found him to be competent. Furthermore when the POA was being prepared in late October 2013, Attorney Brian Raphan, the principal of the Law ?rm, had a long telephone conversation with Bob to determine for himself that Bob understood the details of the POA and was fully competent to sign it. In November 2013, when the Trust was being prepared, two attorneys from the ?rm, Lisa Hoover and Matt Raphan made two separate visits to Bob in his Apartment to review the Trust in detail and in its entirety. Bob made some changes and the second visit was to go over the completed Dust and have him execute it. They were absolutely con?dent that he was of sound mind. My conclusion is that this Trust with any amendments that are made, offers the least chance of a successful challenge to the "Dust upon Bob's passing. The same is true of the Pour Over will that was prepared in conjunction with this Trust. - Page 2- 6I4IZOIS Gmail - Robert Wein: Considerations re; The Man-iagc and Trusts i Elizabeth Savitt wt bugle Robert Wein: Considerations re; The Marriage and Trusts 1 message Dwein5680@aol.com Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:18 PM To: savittguardians@gmail.com Cc: dwein5680@aol.com Betsy, Attached are cogent ethical and fiduciary arguments to annul the marriage, to revoke the Amended and Restated Trust dated Aug 25, 2015, and to use other instruments to reinstate me as an heir and for any other changes to Bob's last testament. I hope this is useful to you. Also would you e-mail me a copy of the 2011 Will I gave you Monday. It was the only copy I had. On another topic I had some thoughts concerning Vita's attorney's reguest for reimbursement of his fees. Vita's attorney filed a petition and arguments against the appointment of a guardian and if you remember at the hearing Oct 17, he argued before thejudge against guardianship and for a less restrictive approach. But he said that if the court concluded that guardianship was necessary then he would be agreeable to the appointment of Elizabeth Savitt. So let's analyze the hours he spent on contesting the guardianship and the time he spent in supporting the guardianship, which WAS IN BEST INTEREST. I submit that all his hours were spent to impede the guardianship except for less than 2 minutes when he agreed in court to your appointment. May be you should be very generous and pay him for 1/2 hour of his hourly fee. Best Dan 6f4l2015 Gmail - Robert/Vila I Elizabeth Savitt tart :003'9 RobertNita 3 messages Elizabeth Savitt Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:59 AM To: Daniel Wein Daniel, What are your medical legal grounds for Bob's incapacity before the marriage date of August 25? Do you have Dr.'s reports? What is your testimony regarding the coercion Bob experienced concerning the marriage and the changing of his documents? I have the letters from his friends. Elizabeth "Betsy" Savitt Savitt Guardians 561-573-1292 Fax 561 ~439?6765 Dwein5680@aol.com Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:16 PM To: savittguardians@gmail.com Cc: dwein5680@aol.com Betsy, It's going to take me a little while to put together a response to your questions. I have some other matters to attend to today. However 51412015 damn-Win yesterday, prior to receiving this e-mail, I put together reasons that the marriage should be annulled and reasons that the Amended and Restated Trust of Aug 25 should be revoked and not used as the instrument to reinstate me as an heir. I am fonivarding this to you in a separate e-mail Dan [Quoted text hidden] Elizabeth Savitt Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:55 PM To: Daniel Wein FYI, Jodi text that there are new owners of Colony and the food is now had and they need to move to a better facility. [Quoted text hidden] Gmuil - Re: Pclilion to Amend . Elizabeth Savitt Lift. .t It ?it Re: Petition to Amend 1 message Dwein5680@aol.com Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:51 PM To: savittguardians@gmail.com Cc: dwein5680@aol.com Betsy. Thanks for the info. I'm confused as to witch Trust is to be amended. The wording - - - - - - - -execute the amendment to the ROBERT WEIN LIVING TRUST dated November 25, 2013, as amended and restated" is vague. I asked both Stacy and Manny Kushner (two attorneys) if they could determine from the wording which trust is the instrument for the amendment and they could not. Manny mentioned that any changes to the estate plan is supposed to be limited to tax planning and not change beneficiaries and that the best approach is to invalidate the Amended and Restated Trust dated August 25, 2014 the trust executed while Bob was suffering from dementia). Is there any way that you could clarify this and possibly send me a copy of the proposed changes? Thanks, Dan In a message dated 2/23/2015 9:20:51 AM. Eastern Standard Time, savittguardians@gmail.com writes: FYI Elizobeth "Betsy" Sovitt 6W2015 Gmail - Respnse lo Petitions Elizabeth Savitt tyi? {t 10316 ReSpnse to Petitions 1 message Dwein5680@aol.com Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM To: savittguardians@gmail.com Cc: dwein5680@aol.com, stacywein@aol.com 3/13/2015 Hi Betsy, I want to give you a heads up on responses to Ellen's Petitions ljust filed with the court.(see attachments). I did this under advice from Manny Kushner and for two essential reasons. First, I want to be formally on the list with the court for all petitions, motions, orders, etc, with regard to the amendment to the Trust and the Annulment of the Marriage. Second, I want to be on record with respect to the Amended and Restated Trust dated Aug 25, 2014. I strongly believe that using this trust to effect any changes will result in successful challenges by Jodi ,as Vita's POA, and certainly any challenges after Bob's death. I am of course grateful for you in bringing these actions before the court. I hope my formal response is helpful. Best, Dan 2 attachments ResponseTo.pdf 45K zpfile001.bin 40K 6/4/2015 Gmail - Fwd: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER I i Elizabeth Savitt in?nitrlc Fwd: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 5 messages Stacy Wein Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 6: To: Elizabeth Savitt Hi Betsy Unfortunately Larry was taken to the hospital again yesterday from the shelter. They said if he is dismptive one more time he will I: kicked out the homeless shelter and really be homeless I gave The director of the shelter, Jeffrey Slater your phone number. wanted some information about Bob. I hope that was ok. The problem is Larry has funds but seems to be incapable of taking care himself. Again I'm not sure what] can do, but anything you suggest I will do to help Larry. On another point, I saw \?ta's response to the petition and her request for Uncle Bob to pay for documents to be copied and provic because they say "Vita has no money to get the documents hersell? . If We through Jodi, did not evict Lany he would still be payi the Mortgage (as he always had) and she would have the approximately $3000 a month the apartment costs (mortgage, maintena and taxes). Also any attorney that has ?led a notice to represent a party in an action can get the court ?le online through Odessy 0 going to the court house and getting a copy of the ?le. I believe Attorney Rosenwater isjust tiying to stretch this case out as long . possible as everyone is aware of Uncle Bob's precarious health issues. I'd appreciate ifyou could let me know the intention ofyour attorney Ellen Mon-is on going forward with the petitions last tiled, so tt? can better advise my father on the options regarding all the issues. Thank you Stacy Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Stacy Wein Date: April 9, 2015 at 4:53:50 PM EDT To: dwein5680@aol.com Subject: Fwd: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER Sent from my iPad Begin fonrvarded message: From: "Kushner, Manuel" Date: April 9. 2015 at 4:20:51 PM EDT To: Stacy Wein Subject: FW: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER have no Idea why he de-selected you. You should let him know that heshould Include you in the service. Regards. Manny Manuel Kushner 6140015 Gmail - Fwd: Post investigalcs: l-low professional guardian got I 3 Elizabeth Savitt 171?: it TISIC Fwd: Post investigates: How professional guardian got 2 messages Stacy Wein Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:41 PM To: Elizabeth Savitt Betsy i saw this article you mentioned to my Father regarding Ellen Morris. I am extremely concerned that she is compromised and has a con?ict. The facts of this case (below) are different but very embarrassing for Ellen. I can understand her reluctance to purse an annulment vigorously, after this recent bad publicity, and this it is not In the best interest of my Uncle. I believe you need new counsel to represent you and my Uncle in annulment of his marriage and the revocation of the Amended and Restated Trust of August 2014. As an attorney myself, I see no other signi?cant issue other then "Bob was suffering dementia and without capacity to enter into marriage or a contract just weeks before the Court found he was incapacitated" . In addition, he was under coercive in?uence from Jodi, Vita and possibly Delores. i can recommend an Attorney friend of mine who has a Masters in Elder Law. His Name Is Gary Mans?eld of Mans?eld Bronson in Hollywood. His phone number is 954?601?5600. I told him you may call him. I believe that time is of the essence as Bob is not well and deserves to enjoy 614/2015 Gmnil - Robert Wein I'm concemed - Elizabeth Savitt l;9( It Robert Wein I'm concerned 4 messages Dwein5680@aol.com Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:02 PM To: savittguardians@gmail.com Cc: dwein5680@aol.com 4/13/2015 Betsy, Stacy fonrvarded your E-mail to me in which you say that you need to be clear on Bob's intentions regarding the Annulment. This is now close to 6 weeks after Ellen ?led the petition February 23. There was ample time to speak to Bob before now. I am disturbed, especially after our conversation Friday, when we both seemed to agree that it was time to progress expeditiously with the annulment and reversal of the Trust, both of which are in Bob's best interests. I am more convinced now that Ellen is not anxious to pursue this because of the very bad publicity naming her in an annulment controversy in the recent Palm Beach Post article. Is this a delaying tactic on her part? Back even before the court order declaring Bob incapacitated, Ellen wanted the court order to preclude any litigation while Bob is alive. Manny Kushner objected and did not allow that. What ever Bob's feelings or intentions are, it should not be a deciding factor in deciding what is, or is not in his best interests as determined by you, his guardian. He has been determined to be incapacitated by court order without the right to make life related decisions. Since that court order of October ?nding him incapacitated, his dementia has deepened, as has his physical condition. What ever he says 61412015 Gmail - Robert Wain I'm mnoemed should not have a signi?cant bearing on these proceedings. I see no problem if you want to speak with Bob about his feelings concerning the marriage, but this should not in anyway delay or govern the decision to pursue the annulment. I understand and certainly don't object to you getting his opinion but nevertheless Bob does net now have testamentary capacity, even if he wants the annulment (which in my conversations with him he does). Because at times he is very passive and meek, and does no want to make waves, one must put things in context for him so that he understands why you are questioning him.. Here is howl approached him. "Bob, did you marry Vita because you thought it would protect Larry? Who told you this? Do you know that Jodi, acting for Vita, has evicted Larry and that he had been living in a homeless shelter? Do you know that Jodi has demanded over $5,000 from Larry to get his belongings that they sent to a storage facility? Do you now think marrying Vita protected Lan'y? Do you want to stay married to Vita?? (all questions relating to facts he needs to be reminded of). For Bob to decide on whether he really wants to stay married to Vita you have to remind him of the present status with Larry, since to protect Larry was the motive for the marriage. Otherwise if you just say Bob,? do you want to annul you marriage?, he very well may say no, just to keep the status quo and avoid confrontation. It has been my experience when asking Bob very simple direct questions about his desires, without any background information, his answers will not be consistent. In the many times I asked him, for example,about my removal as an hair and showed him or read him or reminded him of the offensive paragraph in the trust, he was entirely consistent over time of his disapproval. Similarly when I questioned him about the marriage and asked him the questions I suggest above, without any opinion 6?412015 Grnnil - Robert Wein I'm oonoemod from me interjecting, his answers have again been consistent over time. In any event, no matter what ever Bob says, positive for our case, or negative, it is not the signi?cant factor in your decision to pursue what is right and what is in his interest. I also noted in your E-mail that you (I presume Ellen) state that Bob did have testamentary capacity I presume when he met with you and Ellen.) I don't think that it is wise to use this in any argument in litigating the trust or marriage. This could be taken to infer that Bob must also have had testamentary capacity when he signed the Amended and Restated Trust of August 25', 2014. and when he got married on August 6 well before Ellen's meeting with Bob). He was certainly more severely demented when you and Ellen met with him than in August of 2014. To use the argument that he had testamentary capacity to add me as an heir back into the trust and to annul the marriage. and this is the reason to do so. defeats the major legal argument that he was suffering from dementia. under coercive in?uence and did not have testamentary capacity when making those decisions Once again I have to emphasize that although as a guardian you may want to know the desires of the ward, his desires are not the deciding factor in the guardian's ?duciary responsibility to act in his best interest. Just a little while ago as was constructing this Email I spoke to Ellen's of?ce and was informed that she won't be available to us until next week. If you think it is necessary for Stacy to confer with her before moving ahead. this is a further delay. I have doubts that she will be quickly available for a conference when she returns from vacation. Betsy I am very disturbed that she did not ?le a motion limiting the time allowed for Rosenwater?s response. He ?led the motion one month ago. March13, 2015 and as of April 9, 2015 he is ?rst asking for Court Documents (anything to delay). Has Ellen responded to this? Back as far as November 11, 2014 you and I had a 6/412015 Gmnil - Fwd: Post investigates: How proftssional guardian got I wuwmypalmbcachpochom this stage of his life. Stacy Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Stacy Wein Date: April 10, 2015 at 12:44:55 PM EDT To: dwein5680@aol.com Subject: Post investigates: How professional guardian got I apr20?l b2d979eb.3962889.735698 Sent from my iPad Elizabeth Savitt Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 9:37 AM To: Stacy Wein Stacy, I will need to speak to Bob again as I want to be clear what his intentions are. What does he want to do with Vita? Also, you may not know, but we already filed to amend 6f4l2015 Gmail - Fwd: Post investigates: How professional guardian got i the trust as Bob asked to add your father back into the trust for 150,000. and in that we stated that he did have testamentary capacity. [Quoted text hidden] Elizabeth "Betsy" Savitt Savi?'? Guardians 561-573-1292 - Fax 561-439?6765 6W2015 Gmnil - Robert Wein I'm concerned Elizabeth "Betsy" Savitt Guardians 561 ?573-1 292 Fax 561?439-6765 Dwein5680@aol.com Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 3:17 PM To: savittguardians@gmail.com Cc: dwein5680@aol.com Betsy, I don't doubt that Ellen is an excellent attorney. You won't have been using her if she wasn't. However in our case there are some mitigating concerns that suggest she may not be the best choice here. 1. She was originally against any litigation while Bob is alive. 2. If it's important for her to speak to Bob, why didn't she confer with him again prior to ?ling the petitions. 3. You mentioned to me that Ellen ?led the petitions to scare Vita and Jodi to drop Larry's eviction proceedings. If that were the case it would seem she had no intention of proceeding with litigation. And if that is so, I suspect that it may be in violation of the Florida Bar codes to ?le a petition to the court to scare someone with regard to another issue. 4. Ellen ?led the petitions on February 22 and 23. Rosenwater ?led his Notice of Appearance and Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, on March 13. Would it not have been apprOpriate for Ellen to have responded with some time limit for 61412015 Gmail - Robert Wein I'm concerned Rosenwater to respond, just as the original petitions from Ellen had a limit of 20 days for any reSponse? And now with his Notice of Unserved Documents ?led on April 9 (almost 7 weeks later), where is Ellen's response? She has let things drag when there should have been prompt action in moving forward with the litigation. eSpecially in view of Bob's serious deterioration in health. 5. The bad publicity in the Palm Beach Post regarding a ward's annulment by a guardian,naming Ellen as the attorney, and the possible pressure from Gutter Chavez lawyers, may be an impediment in an aggressive representation by Ellen. All of these things give me pause but it's your call. By the way, what was Ellen's response to bringing Mitch Kitrosa on board?? Dan [Quoted text hidden] Elizabeth Savitt Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:20 PM To: Daniel Wein Dan, it doesn't help Bob for us to do this email writing. Let's no longer speculate. Ellen is in charge of the legal aspects of these matters. It would not be proper for you, me or Stacy to second guess her without knowing all about the facts and law and other factors necessary to prove the cases. As have informed you, please direct your concerns about the petitions to Ellen as only she has the knowledge and experience to correctly respond. Thanks, Betsy [Quoted text hidden] 6140015 Gmail - Robert Wein I'm ooncemed conversation in which you stated that the reversal of the trust should proceed soon. in about two weeks you said. It's been 5 months since we both agreed it was necessary to proceed expeditiously. I don't think Ellen has her heart in this. What did she think of bringing Mitch Kitrosa on board? Is it time for you to hire another attorney? Let's talk. Best Dan Elizabeth Savitt Tue. Apr 14, 2015 at 8:23 AM To: Daniel Wein Stacy Wein Bcc: Ellen Morris I am writing to both the same page. Notwithstanding the views of the 3 of us on the annulment and revocation of the trust matters, we must remember that our views are not evidence that can be used at a trial. Of course both of you can be fact witnesses, but it is always the lawyer that knows what must be proven and can evaluate the facts of the case. Ellen is an outstanding trial lawyer. If she wants to meet with Bob, it is likely because of her trial experience that tells her that a judge will want to hear from the spouse who purportedly wants the annulment to say so if possible in court. I agree that we must proceed with diligence to make a determination that the case can be won and that it is in the best interests of Bob. That is why I am directing you to Ellen on these issues as both of you need to hear from her and she from you. Let me know your progress. Thanks, Betsy [Quoted text hidden] Filters Used: Date Printed: 4/27/2015 1 Tagged Record rt Time Printed: Printed By: LISA Form Format Date 4124/2015 Time Duration 0.00 (hours) Code Subject Robert Wein Staff Ellen Morris Client Ms. Elizabeth B. Savitt MatRef Wein, Robert Paul MatNo 30818.008 From Stacy Wein To Ellen Morris CC To Elizabeth Savitt dwein5680@aol.com 300 To Reminders (days before) Follow Done Notify Hide Trigger Private Status User1 User2, User2 User4 Dear Ellen: Thank you for taking the time to meet my father and I on Wednesday. It was almost 6 PM before we left the Assisted Living Facility because we wanted to make sure that Bob ate, as he is so upset about the situation with my Cousin Larry. We are happy that you intend to pursue the annulment. After that, my father and I spent considerable time going over all of the documents carefully and reviewing the statutes as well. We found a number of issues with the "Amended and Restated Robert Wein Living Trust" of August 2014 which had escaped my previous reading and may have escaped yours also. I have run this by another Elder Law Attorney and I would not take your time, again, unless I felt that Elizabeth had the responsibility and the legal rights as Guardian to pursue these issues in court. 1. At the present time Robert Wein is stated as the Trustee. There are no co- trustees. Article IV, paragraph D, sub paragraph 1a. (page 14) appointed DELORES BRYANT as successor trustee and if she resigns, etc, then JORDAN KLINGSBERG. ESQ, together with partners of the law firm of GUTTER CHAVES, et al.. According to the REPORT OF COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL (Mitch Kitrosa), Delores Bryant as well as Jordan Klingsberg or any other Gutter Chaves attorney are "not" willing to serve as trustees. So currently there are no appointed successor trustees. Another worrisome point is that the Amended and Restated trust gives Gutter Chaves "the power" to appoint a successor trustee. (See the last sentence of the aforementioned paragraph). The Gutter ?rms has no prior relationship with my Uncle. It wasn't until a few days after his marriage to Vita that Jodi Rich took him to "her attorneys" to revoke the Robert Wein Living Trust of November 2013 entered into in the state of New York, where Bob lived for almost 87 years. 2. In the court order appointing Elizabeth as guardian, paragraph 2, it speci?cally states the rights delegated to the guardian islare to ?to manage all of the property of the ward including the assets of the Robert Wein Trust" Not the Amended and Restated Trust). It goes on to say "The investment of the wards funds shall be overseen by Morgan Stanley through the office of Matthew Hug hes?. The reference to the ?Robert Wein Trust? is obviously the "Robert Wein Living Trust? dated November 25, 2013, since during this period the assets were in this trust and not in the Amended and Restated Trust. In fact a large portion of the assets were held in the Morgan Stanley Account #232- 087194-212, titled R. WEIN D.WEIN CO-TTEES R.WEIN LIV. TR. 11/25/2013. Up to today?s date, the substantial assets in two other accounts, namely, Joseph Gunner and TIG Arbitrage Associates LP, are still titled The Robert Wein Living Trust of Nov 25, 2013). No assets were ever transferred to the Filters Used: Date Printed: 4I27I2015 1 Tagged Record mall Re p0 rt Time Printed: Form Format Printed By: LISA Amended and Restated Trust of August 25, 2014. 3. There is also another very concerning issue for future probate. My father checked the current equity account held by Morgan Stanley. It is titled ?Elizabeth Savitt Guardian for Estate of Robert Wein?. Evidently it is not a Trust account and I believe it would be subject to probate upon Bob's demise. Additionally we understand that Elizabeth is consolidating all the other equity accounts into the Morgan Stanley account with Matthew Hughes. Unless the Account is in a trust, it compounds the probate issues. In my reading of 744.441 (19) the Guardian does have the ability to make these decisions. There are signi?cant issues, besides the ones my father enumerated, with the Amended and Restated Trust that you propose to use as the instrument for further amendments. I'm at a loss of why you would choose the "Amended and Restated Trust of 2014" to follow instead of the original "Robert Wein Living Trust of November 2013" that presents none of these issues. Again thanks with your consideration. Respectfully, Stacy Wein Sent from my iPad